Customer Reviews

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

I cannot recommend this book enough; it's based on a wildly popular and critically acclaimed set of videos originally aired on YouTube which garnered many millions of hits on various websites.How It All Ends (Single Disc Edition)

Greg Craven has the spark of genius in the way he cuts through all the confusing "it will, it won't, it will too!". On the one hand we have clever wordy scientists and on the other, crafty manipulative, articulate global warming deniers (Ok, I'm a little biased on this one!) and the poor ordinary bloke doesn't know who to believe in the shouting match. He/she just wants to know what's the best bet to protect their loved family and friends. They don't want to risk damaging the economy but they also don't want to risk ruining the planet that their kids will grow up in. How on earth can they decide what's best?

This book will show how you don't need to be an expert to make your own sensible decisions using the sort of ordinary risk assessment techniques that we all use when we cross the road or buy house or car insurance.

Craven basically looks at what each side in the debate is claiming and looks at what will happen if they are wrong and then shows what the consequences would be for us all. Instead of trying to work out definitively who is right, which is very difficult as shown by the many complicated books available that try to, Craven clearly shows that asking what happens if one or the other side is wrong gives a very simple, yet brilliant, way of deciding what the best bet is when deciding what to do, or not do, about it.

This "risk assessment" method might sound dry and dull but Greg is often very funny and he is a natural communicator (he's a science teacher with the gift of humour). It's rather like Carl Sagan meets Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy! You won't see the chemical explosions special effects or the funny hats featured in the videos but the book has other fun stuff too. Not to mention loads of "Dohhh!! why didn't I (or the government!) think of that?" moments.

Greg got to write this book based on the success of the "How It All Ends" videos which were in turn based on his original 10 minute YouTube video "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See". A firestorm of critics descended on that one but Craven didn't give up - he used every helpful or savage critical comment to make his argument stronger. By using the power of the critical Internet crowds he is now pretty sure that EVERY counter-argument has been addressed and answered... This book goes beyond even his original "bulletproof" argument.

This just might be the very first time that "crowd sourcing" (A.K.A the wisdom of crowds) has been utilised to this extent to refine and polish an argument. The result has been called brilliant.

This is not just another global warming book. This is for everyone. It's funny and entertaining and, above all else, wise - you will say "YES!, why didn't I think of that - that is so obvious now!" as Greg cuts though the confusion and finds the light switch to clarify matters so clearly that anyone can understand them.

A valuable side effect of the risk assessment system that Craven sketches out is that the very same methods can be used in all sorts of other situations in life to make decisions where the outcome is uncertain, or if there is not quite enough info to give a 100% definite answer based on the known facts.

This book is deeper than the videos but seeing Greg in full flow is a joy that you will want to pass on to others, so I recommend you take a look at the videos too.How It All Ends (Single Disc Edition)

This is an easy to read book for most adults and high-school students and does an honest job at attempting to do what the author claims he wishes to do. That is, provide an argument for addressing climate change regardless of "what the science eventually concludes". The reason I give just three stars is that Craven does a disservice to all by even keeping alive the idea that the science is unsettled and such a debate even exists. The science has been clear for several decades now. One need merely read the Charney Report from 1979 which concludes "our best estimate is that changes in global temperature of the order of 3°C will occur and that these will be accompanied by significant changes in regional climatic patterns."
The 1979 JASON technical report entitled "The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate" also predicted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would double from their pre-industrial levels by about 2035. Today it is expected this will happen by about 2050. They suggested that this doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to an average warming across the planet of 2-3C, an estimate in line with the most current IPCC findings. They further warned that polar regions would warm by much more than the average, perhaps by as much as 10C or 12C. That prediction is already coming true and was also predicted by the IPCC in 1995.
In other words there is no debate. The scientific predictions from 30 years ago, made from assessments gathered during the 1960's and 1970's, told us what ALL peer-reviewed assessments since then have told us. All we have essentially done in the last 25 years is further refine the predictions on the regional effects.
We need to stop pretending that a handful of fossil fuel industry funded opportunists doing 3rd rate science is the equivalent of a meaningful debate. The scientists who first began publishing doubts on climate change in the popular press were the very same scientists who also published similar reports to cast doubt on the link between cancer and tobacco, CFC's and the ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen emissions to acid rain. They have, in internal communications, admitted their reports are only intended to give the impression a debate exists to delay action. They have never been "correct" in their findings because that is not their intention.
While this author's heart is in the right place he is aiding those who deceive the public for their own political and economic benefit at the expense of the public good.
The science is settled, there is NO debate. It is time to give climate change deniers the same level of attention we give to those who promulgate perpetual motion machines since their "science" is roughly equally valid.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh since the author admits he "believes" in climate change but the "debate" has already cost us 30 years. One no more "believes" in climate change than one "believes" in gravity or electro-magnetism. We cannot afford to molly-coddle our societies scientifically illiterate. They are the minority and the time to act has already passed.

This book is outstanding for educators looking to teach their students about risk management and climate change. The value in its critical thinking skills development is worth the cost alone. I highly recommend it to everyone.

Whether you are already convinced of the threat of climate change and want to learn how to help correct it (or want to help convince someone else) or a skeptic who wants to make absolutely sure of your convictions, or even someone who doesn't care about the climate change debate at all, you will take something from this book. Craven presents, in a clear and easy-to-digest way, a new way of thinking about not only the issue at hand, but any sort of difficult decision. If you want to train your mind to think better, please buy this book. And one for your sibling. And cousin. And friend. And co-worker. And someone you see on the street.

*Disclaimer - Greg is a good college friend, so I am in no way objective in this review . He's no newcomer to the debate, though, and has been passionate about this topic since the late 80's. I remember talking Peak Oil late into the night on more than one occasion.*

That said - the strength and value of this book is not just in its parsing of the climate change debate and its permutations. It is as an excellent primer for the layperson on critical thought, the scientific process, and understanding how to look beyond the sound bites and understand the perspective of the various parties making arguments on both sides of the issue. These elements are as important, or more important, than the main thesis of the book as it helps us be better, more educated, and thoughtful citizens. These tools that Greg presents can be used in a wide variety of arguments and issues that we approach.

What's the Worst That Could Happen, by Greg Craven, doesn't tell you what you should think about the global warming debate, but rather provides you with a set of logical tools that allow you to make your own evaluation. Mr. Craven mixes humor with exhaustive research on climate change in a manner that is both entertaining and informative. Craven's approach encourages people to take action on the global climate issue, as opposed to just continuing to argue about the validity of various data sources. We are never going to have perfect information about the future, so how can you decide what course to take? Well, reading Craven's book is a good first step.

We've all been inundated with the pros and cons of the global warming and climate change debate. And probably most of us are inclined to believe that the world will warm, polar bears will suffer, lawns will turn brown, and cars will get smaller. The breezy hillsides will become populated with windmills, the southwest desert will host large solar-thermal farms, our utilities will watch our energy use through smart meters, and new power transmission lines will link wind and solar power to our population centers. All this change will happen to run our electric cars, our virtual meetings, our air conditioning, our refrigerators, and our wide-screen televisions. That doesn't sound particularly disrupting, just a little expensive. Between that and a health care solution, we will be set for the 21st Century.

Not so fast Bubba. Have you really taken a look at the assumptions you are making and how you arrived at you conclusion? For most of us, I suspect our thinking is,

`Yeah, we may get warmer but the jury is still out on how bad the impact might be even if we could do much about it. And I can hardly afford my mortgage, my health insurance, my car payment, the college tuition, my tax bill, my (taxpayer) share of all of these under-funded pension plans, and the occasional vacation to Yosemite or the Grand Canyon the way it is. I think I'll pass on most of these expensive carbon-footprint reducing actions.'

Global warming is not yet `in our face' - real, ugly, and frightening - so it is easy to discount the need to `really' do something about it. Something that takes conscious decisions that reduce the choices we thought we would be able to make like buying that useful SUV, acquiring that 52" LED flat panel HDTV, investing in that continuing education tuition, or expanding out of our cramped home as the kids start arriving. It's all due to a biological fault in this phase of our evolution. In the last 10,000 years our `fight or flight' quick reaction mechanism has become less and less essential to our survival. Instead, it is becoming more important to exercise longer-term planning skills that have emerged over the last thirty years. These skills include scenario planning, risk-reward analysis (expected value), real options, and systems thinking. Unfortunately, these are not nearly as natural and persuasive and suffer unexpected `long tail' effects as opposed to clear `in your face - fight or flight' decision-making.

Greg Craven addresses our shortcomings for effective long term planning to protect ourselves and, more importantly, our children and their children. He has used his own experience in teaching students about physics and chemistry to engage them in refining his `rational decision' process. How to sort through all of the contrary points-of-view, focusing not on searching for what is the right answer about the extent and degree of global warming risk, but rather on what we risk if we make the wrong bet. His approach is to focus on what we control - our choices - and how to bolster our ability to think longer term by framing the arguments from pro-con advocates, weighing the credibility of various spokespersons, creating a decision matrix (what Nature does vs. what We choose to do), assessing the risk-reward, and making your choice for action or not. This approach is applicable to a wide variety of widely debated issues so becoming comfortable with Mr. Craven's approach has benefits well beyond your global warming thinking and decision making.

Of course, what we as individuals do on these global community issues only has a significant impact if all of us join in. So ultimately there is the need for a social movement to create a `tipping point' for effective action. This is necessary to develop enough support to reach that "angle of repose' in which a small additional nudge creates the positive social feedback to generate self-sustaining behavioral change to deal with global warming risk - in time - to anticipate and overcome the inherent delayed responses, massive momentums, non-linear tipping points, and feedbacks in the global climate system. Mr. Craven's framework will help the proactive reader create their own story on what to believe and how to respond to these real challenges that shape our future.

As a reporter for The Christian Science Monitor, I spent several hours in Greg Craven's classroom and in private conversation with him. First, he's a truly remarkable teacher. He's engaging and challenging, and he loves his subject matter in a way that captivates as well as informs his students. His YouTube videos, which went viral, are remarkable as well -- explaining with logic and humor the essence of global climate change and laying out why we should care and want to do something about it. I'm delighted that his work continues to pay off in the form of a new book, which deserves to be read by anyone who cares about the future of the planet. Read my article about him here: [...]

In law, the amount spent on a solution is supposed to be proportional to the risk of loss.

But what happens when credible expertise provides different estimates concerning the risk of loss?

You give values to the conclusions of the experts and then throw them into a hopper and make a decision based on what they collectively say, according to Greg Craven. It's a little like hearing from multiple doctors about whether you really should get that surgery or not.

In this masterful book, Craven, a high school teacher, not only schools us on the essentials of the ongoing debate about Earth's climate, he also imparts critical information about the human reasoning process.

I especially like his introductory chapters where he discussed the inherent limits of science and inherent limits of human reasoning. Using these chapters as a springboard he discusses the various major recent contributions to the debate.

While I leave my own views on this issue silent, I would strongly recommend you read this book. In a short accessible two hundred pages, Craven gives you the tools to decide for yourself.

Craven provides (and exhaustively verbalized in his videos) completely reasoned explanations for why global warming (GW) is not contested by a rational and informed person.

Who do you believe? Craven provides a very straight-forward hierarchy representing credentialed individuals and organizations. You should believe those sources highest on the hierarchy. This is not rocket science. It is a simple matter of objectively discovering who knows the most - and knows it at the deepest levels. Those highest on the hierarchy are also the least likely to commit confirmation bias - a topic Craven explains well.

What is the science? Here again, Craven - a science teacher - presents an easily understood, and correct, overview of CO2 emissions and sequestration. You can delve more into the science if you like, but Craven's overview makes the point. While some may say he oversimplifies, he really doesn't. It is also important to note that Carl Sagan was often criticized for oversimplification - but he didn't either. When a scientist presents a topic to the general public, some simplification is necessary.

Are people really causing global change? Unfortunately, yes indeed. While CO2 is naturally generated and consumed, nature's wonderful balancing act is tilted by our resurrection of millions of years of carbon from beneath the ground.

Another excellent book on this topic is David MacKay's "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" Get both books. Because there are some very self-centered groups out there that are trying to say GW is a hoax, it is important that we all learn enough to recognize truth in this critical time.

Perhaps one of the most pleasant characteristics of Craven's work is that he constantly hopes he is wrong. He searches for reasons not to believe what he understands. That's what scientists are supposed to do. But it is a fact that the most prominent scientists, and their organizations, agree with Craven's conclusions.